Global Donor Platform for Rural Development

The Contribution of Partnerships to Sector Coordination and Aid Effectiveness
The Case of Agriculture and Rural Development Partnerships in Vietnam
Summarised version


COPYRIGHT Global Donor Platform studies are joint analyses of its members designed to close identified information gaps and provide a global public good. Platform studies shall inform and guide policy makers and practitioners in the delivery of assistance in agriculture and rural development. As such, Platform publications are not copyright protected. The Platform encourages duplication of its materials for non-commercial purposes. Proper citation is requested at all times. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work is hereby granted without fee and without a formal request provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantages and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page. Information not owned by the Platform must be honoured and permission pursued with the owner of the information.

The introduction of sector-wide coordination mechanisms and approaches in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Vietnam (MARD) is at an early stage. Experience has been gained from five ministry-wide and sub-sector level partnership initiatives and the piloting of multi-donor budget support to a core Government of Vietnam (GoV) sub-sector programme. In addition ministry-level aid management support structures have recently been established and various new partnership, networking and strategy development initiatives are being contemplated, including, notably, the formulation of a comprehensive Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD Strategy).
[1] The full version of the study is available at

This study[1], jointly implemented by MARD and the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (Platform), supports consolidation of these sector initiatives in MARD through analysis of the experiences gained to date, compilation of key lessons learned and a synthesis of related policy and operational implications. This in turn will contribute to the exploration of options for the application of effective ODA management, sector coordination mechanisms and sector-wide approaches in the context of the upcoming RD Strategy. This exercise assists MARD and its partners in their efforts to implement the Hanoi Core Statement on Aid Effectiveness, Harmonisation and Alignment in the context of the agriculture and rural development (ARD) sector. Furthermore, engagement by the Platform in this exercise will contribute to the dissemination of “the Vietnam experience” to a global audience. The basic analytical question for the study is: “What are the (institutional) factors determining the extent to which individual partnerships effectively contribute to enhanced aid effectiveness and the application of sector approaches in their respective sub-sectors?”

The following five MARD partnerships constitute the core focus of the study: 1. The ministry-wide International Support Group (ISG), 2. The Forest Sector Support Partnership (FSSP) and the Trust Fund for Forests (TFF), 3. The Natural Disaster Mitigation Partnership (NDMP), 4. The Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Partnership (RWSSP), and 5. The Partnership for Avian and Human Influenza (PAHI).

The study reviews the basic question through an analysis at three levels:

> National level: This includes an introduction to the overall socio-economic development of
Vietnam and the “macro-level” framework for sector coordination and aid effectiveness. It is this framework that sets the conditions under which the efforts of MARD and other sector-level line ministries in this regard are implemented.

> MARD level: This analysis reviews the opportunities and barriers for partnership effectiveness
resulting from the immediate institutional and regulatory environment in which the partnerships operate. This includes analysis of cross-cutting efforts initiated by MARD and its partners to enhance internal capacity for adoption of new aid modalities and sector-approaches.

> Partnership level: This includes analysis of issues of importance for the successful design of
partnership structures, analysis of the effectiveness of the institutional structure and operational modality applied by individual partnerships, and analysis of the extent to which “outcomes” or results of individual partnerships have met critical sector-level “change dimensions”. The emphasis of the study, in addition to reviewing conditioning factors at the national and at MARD level, is to undertake a comparative analysis of the partnerships, rather than an individual analysis of each partnership. Such a comparison will enable learning about “what works and what doesn’t work” across partnerships.


[2] Global Donor Platform for Rural Development (2007): 'Formulating and Implementing Sector-wide Approaches in Agriculture and Rural Development”. This study includes a brief desk review of the Vietnam forest sector’s efforts to develop elements of a sector-wide approach. The use of the ODI “SWAp change model” areas is intended to enhance the complementarities of the two studies.

The analysis of the institutional structure and operational modalities of the five partnerships reviews the following partnership “building blocks”:

> > > > > >

Partnership rationale, objectives and programme framework; Legal basis and membership; Mechanisms for management, steering and coordination; Issues related to engagement of stakeholders in partnership activity implementation and establishment of sound organisational linkages; Issues related to the financing of partnership structures and activities and the financial viability of the partnerships; and Coordination between partnerships. The analysis of partnership “outcomes” explores the extent to which the partnership has moved from “process” (e.g. the way in which it supports definition of sector priorities, the way stakeholders are consulted and the modalities for ODA delivery) to “performance” (i.e. is it delivering results “on the ground”, and for whom?). To analyse these questions, the study applies the five outcome areas defining “the SWAp model of change” applied by the global study on the application of SWAps in agriculture and rural development conducted by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) on behalf of the Platform[2] .


On this basis, the following five partnership outcome areas are analysed: 1. Policy co-ordination and planning; 2. Aid management, harmonisation and alignment; 3. Ownership, leadership and institutional capacity in the context of decentralisation; 4. Public expenditure management and service delivery; and 5. Interface between public and non-state actors.

Concluding, the study analyses the key lessons learned and intends to form the basis for a consultative process for facilitating a common definition of policy implications for various relevant forums. These would include individual partnerships, MARD, the Partnership Group for Aid Effectiveness (PGAE), the Like-Minded Donor Group (LMDG) and the Aid Monitoring Working Group (AMG) of the International Non-Governmental Organisation Resource Centre (INGO-RC).



Overall, MARD partnerships have emerged as relevant instruments for ODA coordination, enhancement of aid effectiveness in the context of the Hanoi Core Statement and wider sector and sub-sector coordination. Critical partnership features contributing positively in this regard include the following:

> The partnerships have contributed to cross-sector coordination. In the context of the barriers
faced by the GoV with regard to inter-ministerial coordination, the partnerships have facilitated coordination between different ministries and stakeholders. Importantly, MARD itself finds that this is an important value-added by the partnerships.

> The partnerships have contributed to policy coordination and development. Partnership interventions in this area have been most efficient in the preparation of the Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy where the GoV could take maximum ownership of the process. The MARD leadership acknowledges the contributions and potential of the partnerships in this regard. There is a tradition for top-down policy making and limited inclusion of stakeholder constituencies in it, particularly with regard to local levels of government and non-state actors. Given this, the partnerships are well positioned to act as channels for stakeholder inclusion in policy-making and for bringing issues identified by sector constituencies into the policy arena.

> The partnerships have enhanced sector-level information management.

Given the lack of systematic sector information exchange networks, the partnerships become important forums for information dissemination, which, in particular, has guided the design of new programmes. While the partnerships’ contributions towards strengthening of sector performance monitoring are still emerging, valuable efforts in this area are being pursued by three of the five partnerships.

> The partnerships have demonstrated an ability to evolve incrementally in response to changing
sector conditions. This ability to “learn by doing” is recognised by the MARD leadership and is critical if the partnerships are to stay relevant in the context of the rapid socio-economic development in Vietnam.

> The partnerships have increased ownership of ODA management processes by the ministry
and MARD departments. As noted by MARD, the partnerships have helped MARD departments “to learn to deal with donors”, and helped donors to appreciate national leadership in ODA management. MARD departments have found it easier to present policy issues to and receive feedback from donors collectively rather than individually, and have gradually become comfortable with the partnerships as mechanisms for consultation and coordination. This has contributed to enhancing ownership of ODA management by MARD departments. With increasing MARD ownership, the partnerships are emerging as platforms for two-way communication: From being primarily platforms for donors seeking to influence GoV policy the partnerships are increasingly becoming platforms used by the GoV to seek inputs and advice from sector stakeholders.

> The MARD partnerships are results-oriented.

The fact that MARD partnerships are not only platforms for broad policy dialogue, but also support collective identification and coordination of agreed sector interventions, increases the relevance and value added of the MARD partnerships. The analysis of issues for successful partnership design points to the importance of:

> Establishing a common analytical starting point for sector development needs; > The presence of lead-agents for the design process with a mandate and desire to look beyond
their own narrow institutional interests; and

> Carefully defining the sector scope of the partnership as required to maintain close linkages to
sub-sector stakeholder constituencies and avoid programmatic overlap between partnerships.





The following policy and institutional factors at the MARD level affect the programmatic and operational efficiency of the partnerships:

> Overlap in the division of institutional mandates, sector coordination and aid management
responsibilities between MARD departments;

> Risks associated with the proliferation of partnership initiatives related to programmatic overlap
of partnership mandates and limitations on the amount of resources that stakeholders can allocate towards engagement in partnership-based coordination;

> Challenges to creating linkages between the partnerships and national/cross-sector aid effectiveness and coordination initiatives;

> Obstacles to integration of sector-based strategies and action plans into the mainstream GoV
five-year planning framework (the Socio-economic Development Plan, SEDP);

> Challenges to lateral coordination among MARD departments and between MARD and other

> Reluctance of GoV and international stakeholders to effectively pursue an effectiveness agenda
at the sector level;

> Barriers resulting from existing financial and administrative mandates, regulations and culture,
and resource constraints faced by national and international stakeholders. The study also reveals that a range of programmatic, operational and institutional issues needs to be addressed to enhance partnership performance and efficiency, ownership of partnership constituencies and, hence, partnership viability. Critical issues to be addressed by the partnerships include the following:

> The partnerships have not yet contributed significantly to the mainstreaming of national-level
aid effectiveness, administrative reform and decentralisation efforts in the sector context and at local levels. Aid effectiveness, improved governance and decentralisation are often included as partnership objective statements. In practice the partnerships have not established efficient linkages to national efforts in these fields, nor have they effectively supported the mainstreaming of such initiatives at provincial and local levels of government.

> The partnerships have succeeded only to a limited extent in engaging critical provincial and
non-state constituencies. The partnerships have not established structures for meaningful, demand-driven engagement of provinces, the business sector and civil society actors in partnership policy support, sector coordination and other activities. The recent reorientation of the FSSP is an exception

> Operationally, the partnerships largely remain parallel structures. All partnership secretariats
are incorporated as “independent units” that are affiliated with, but not integrated into, MARD departments (the International Cooperation Department, in the case of the ISG, RWSSP and PAHI, and the technical departments, in the case of FSSP and NDMP). These independent units follow operational procedures external to MARD procedures. They rely mainly on contracted staff and are largely dependent on international financing of their operations, with limited counterpart funding provided by MARD/GoV.



RECOMMENDATION 1: The following lessons learned and partnership “do’s and don’ts” should be considered when establishing new – and advancing existing – partnerships.

> Building partnership structures (or programmes – if joint, legally-binding programming is
agreeable to partners) on jointly defined and negotiated sector vision/strategy and analysis. This provides clarity when deciding on partnership rationale and programmatic scope, structure, membership, institutional roles and responsibilities and programmatic linkages.

> Maintaining a sensible balance between “process” and “action”. The GoV and its international
partners have collectively committed to pursuing the principles laid out in the Hanoi Core Statement (HCS). In practice national and international partners alike face various institutional barriers that prevent effective pursuit of collective action. A key purpose of the partnerships is, therefore, to nurture collaborative behaviour through attention to process, without losing sight of the fact that partnership engagement must lead to concrete results to ensure that partners feel that the partnerships add value.

> Ownership by and representation of sector level constituencies. The analysis points to the
importance of ensuring a strong ownership of partnership coordination efforts and activities by institutional sub-sector stakeholders. While agents at the ministerial or higher level must address the need for creating an enabling environment for partnership operation, the ownership by sub-sector actors is essential to consolidate efforts and actions. This, however, does also not necessarily imply that the partnerships should be embedded in the technical departments responsible for the sub-sectors concerned. While this solution may be the preferred option in principle, final decision in this regard should take into consideration the capacities and mandate of the hosting department and the required level of access to the leadership of MARD and other ministries. Furthermore, attention must be given to the careful definition of “sector level constituencies”. Again, as the experience of the FSSP in particular suggests, the composition of these constituencies’ changes over time as the sectors undergo structural change given the rapid socio-economic development in Vietnam. Effectively including private sector and other non-state actors, therefore, becomes of critical and increasing importance, depending on the sector context. All constituencies need to feel ownership of the partnerships to ensure their viability, not only central level GoV actors and their international partners.

> Incremental evolution of partnership rationale, focus and structure. Given the dynamic and
rapid socio-economic evolution of MARD sub-sectors, the thematic issues the ministry is facing, and the barriers faced by many partners with regard to pursuing HCS principles in practice, it is thus critical that partnership programming, planning and structures are flexible enough to allow for incremental evolution of the partnerships. Such flexibility will allow them to: a) learn by doing; b) more effectively reflect the changing conditions in their sector and operational environment; and c) gradually move towards joint and, eventually, legally binding action to the extent this is relevant in the context of the individual partnership.



The study identifies the following lessons learned as critical for maximising the programmatic and operational efficiency of the partnerships:

> Linking partnership action to the aid effectiveness agenda and to the application of wider programme-based approaches to planning and resource use in sectors where this is relevant. The efforts of the partnerships at this time should be focused on institutional and policy development, which will create a foundation for enhanced aid effectiveness and the selection of relevant modalities for joint support. This requires establishment of stronger linkages between the partnerships and national and ministry level aid effectiveness initiatives to support mainstreaming of these at the sector and lower administrative levels.


> Resourcing coordination efforts.

Medium to long-term financial security for partnership operations is needed in order for the partnerships to maintain a long-term horizon for their activities. Financial viability is required whether the partnerships are operating outside the government system or as an integral part of departmental structures and mandates. International financial support is likely to be required in the short to medium term, even where partnerships are incorporated into MARD structures and financial systems. It is important that systems for assessing partnership effectiveness and value added are put in place, as this will enable efficient review and adjustment of partnership structures, mandates and operations given the rapidly changing socio-economic development in Vietnam.

> Monitoring partnership effectiveness.

PARTNERSHIP DO’S AND DON’TS”: Initiation and rationale
Partnership initiation:

> > > >

Joint “sector issue analysis” agreed to, including national trends, sector trends and stakeholder analysis, as a basis for definition of partnership rationale, priorities and structure. Realistically define partnership scope and focus so that it reflects institutional realities and constituencies. Ensure clear demarcation vis-à-vis other partnerships. Initial leadership and investment by key agencies (with the government taking a lead role). Take a long-term strategic view. Partnerships should be dynamic, long-term and continually developing. Partnership rationale, objective and programme focus


Adopt GoV policy frameworks as the basis for partnerships or support the GoV in designing relevant sector policy/strategy. Opt for good ones, not perfect products! Avoid parallel programme frameworks. Emphasise collaborative action and incrementally move towards new modalities/programmebased approaches/SWAps if not all partners are “ready” from the outset. If a partnership is not about SWAp, but about coordination of individual programmes, do so within an agreed, collaboratively defined strategic framework (agreed action plans, lead agencies, thematic groups).

> >



Machinery and membership
Legal basis and membership:


To enhance clarity and ownership, all partners should formally sign up to the partnership “constitution”, whether by signing the founding Partnership Agreement or a subsequent exchange of letters. Address the need to identify structures for representation of provinces and non-state actors from the outset, if treated as “add ons” they are unlikely to join! Management, steering and coordination


> > > > >

Avoid being too ambitious. Be pragmatic, incremental, patient, process-focused, flexible…. Establishing collaborative arrangements is tricky! Support GoV ownership and decisive leadership (vis-à-vis both GoV agencies and donors). Be realistic in terms of capacity to pursue commonly agreed sector activities. Separate partnership coordination and implementation functions (add value, not another layer). Ground partnership planning, coordination and implementation in national agencies and national operational, financial and planning frameworks (e.g. FYP) and build capacity. Engagement of partners


Build institutional mechanisms that facilitate engagement and ownership of national partners in partnership activity implementation, and facilitate support by international partners as required. Engagement of provincial and non-state actors should be demand-driven. Financing of partnership structures and activities



Establish a timetable for the financing of partnership operations by national stakeholders. It should be acknowledged that international financing may be required in the short to medium term.

Programmatic and external linkages > Define partnership priorities in the context of cross-cutting national governance and aid effectiveness initiatives (e.g. SEDP/FYP, PRSC, PAR/decentralisation, PFM, HCS).

> Include support to the sector’s key GoV programme, if any, as an integral part of the partnership’s programmatic priorities.



RECOMMENDATION 2: The following analytical framework for defining partnership models should be considered when establishing new – and advancing existing – partnerships.


Vietnam is undergoing a rapid socio-economic transformation towards a market-oriented economy. At the same time, Vietnam is supporting decentralisation and related administrative reform, and experiencing a relative decline in the role of ODA. The roles of central government agencies, provincial and local authorities, international donors, and non-state agents, such as the business sector and national and international civil society organisations, are, therefore, being transformed. These sector changes play out differently in each of the sub-sectors covered by MARD partnerships, and therefore affect individual partnerships differently. An additional sector-specific factor affecting the evolution of individual partnerships is the presence (or absence) of core government service delivery programmes in the sub-sectors. It is a very positive sign that the design and evolution of the current partnerships have responded to these varying sub-sector conditions. This is a testimony to the responsiveness of the constituencies of each partnership, and the importance of allowing these constituencies to determine the overall direction and focus of each partnership. It is unlikely that the partnerships would have been able to respond in a dynamic fashion to the developments in their respective sub-sectors if a more prescriptive “one-size-fits-all” approach had been applied by MARD with regard to the steering and coordination of the partnerships. Therefore, when deciding on the future direction of the MARD partnerships, the starting point should be that the current partnerships, in spite of many similarities, have evolved differently. They serve different purposes in the context of the different needs and stakeholder settings of their respective sub-sectors. This “partnership diversity” is desirable as it reflects a dynamic engagement by partnership constituencies.

Consequently, it is useful to establish a framework for the definition of alternative “partnership models” that reflects the following important (and inter-related) parameters: 1. The socio-economic characteristics and stakeholder make-up of the sub-sector in which the partnerships operate. The purposes and functions of the partnership structures differ depending on whether they operate in the context of “sectors” focusing on economic production, social service-delivery or combinations thereof, or whether they support the management of “cross-cutting issues”, such as disaster mitigation or avian influenza. 2. Trends in the relative importance of ODA investments to investments by other stakeholders in sub-sectors supported by partnerships, such as the business sector and the GoV itself. How ODA investments will evolve given Vietnam’s move towards middle-income country status is not yet clear, and will certainly differ from sector to sector. 3. Pace and depth of the current institutional evolution of MARD. The role and function of partnerships should be defined in the context of MARD’s shift towards an institutional focus on policy development and the establishment of overall regulatory frameworks for the implementation and monitoring of sector activities by provinces and non-state actors. 4. The desired basic purpose or rationale of each partnership. The partnership’s institutional set-up and linkages should depend on whether the partnership is mainly focused on • strengthening ODA coordination in a given sector, • enhancing aid effectiveness, • strengthening GoV sector coordination as such, or • combinations of these purposes.

The study suggests the following conceptual framework for the future strategic evolution of the MARD partnerships that establishes a range of alternative models for the MARD partnerships:

Sector characteristics Partnership purpose Production sectors Social service sectors • Partnerships remain primarily platforms for GoV/donor aid coordination. They may continue to be “independent units”. Thematic issues

Aid coordination

• Are the partnerships relevant assuming the reduced importance of ODA investments?

• Partnerships remain primarily platforms for GoV/donor aid coordination. They may continue to be “independent units”.

Aid effectiveness

• Are the partnerships relevant assuming the reduced importance of ODA investments?

• Partnerships are nationally embedded platforms for sector dialogue between the GoV, international partners local and nonstate constituencies. And/or:

• Partnerships are nationally embedded platforms for sector dialogue between the GoV, international partners local and nonstate constituencies. And/or:

• Partnerships are frameworks for budget support to national programmes.

• Partnerships are frameworks for budget support to national programmes

Sector coordination / PBA application

• Partnerships are mainly national platforms for sector dialogue, information sharing and coordination between the GoV and local and non-state sector constituencies.

• Partnerships are mainly national platforms for sector dialogue, information sharing and coordination between the GoV and local and non-state sector constituencies.

• Partnerships are mainly national platforms for sector dialogue, information sharing and coordination between the GoV and local and non-state sector constituencies.




On the basis of the analytical framework above, the following specific partnership models emerge. These models should inform decisions on the establishment of new partnerships, and the detailed design of such partnerships: Partnership model 1: Forums for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, planning and coordination. This type of partnership establishes structures supporting the creation of horizontal linkages as well as upward and downward linkages between the many state and non-state sector stakeholders with an interest in sector policy formulation and planning. To the extent that ODA still plays a role in the sub-sector, these partnerships may also be focused on enhancing the aid effectiveness agenda. These partnerships are fully integrated into GoV structures and apply GoV regulations. This model is primarily relevant in production-oriented sub-sectors, but may also be applicable in social service sectors and “thematic areas”. The FSSP has initiated a re-orientation in this direction. Partnership model 2: Operational partnerships for efficient service delivery in sub-sectors focused on public service delivery. These partnerships act as conduits for the collaborative development of programme strategies and the efficient use of resources allocated for public service delivery. They are fully integrated into GoV structures and apply GoV regulations. If ODA investments are still high, they could take the form of operational partnerships for provision of budget support to national public service delivery programmes. The RWSSP and NDMP could potentially move in this direction. Partnership model 3: ODA coordination partnerships. This applies basically to the MARD partnerships in their current form. They may stay as “independent units”, but, ideally, they would be integrated into GoV structures. Partnership model 4: Thematic partnerships addressing cross-cutting recurrent or emerging priorities. The form of these partnerships will depend on the nature of the cross-cutting priority issue(s) in question. But common to all will be the need to establish effective structures for coordination between different ministries/sectors and effective systems for implementation at local levels. The exact institutional structure and linkages for these partnerships will partly depend on whether the cross-cutting issue in question is an emerging one (e.g. avian flu) or a recurrent one (e.g. natural disasters). Partnership model 5: The International Support Group (ISG). This is a special case, as this partnership is specifically focused on ministry-wide policy dialogue between MARD, as an institution, and the international partners collaborating with the ministry.



RECOMMENDATION 3: Options for applying partnership structures as part of the preparation and roll-out of the Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam should be explored.

It follows from the analysis that there is significant scope for enhancing the programmatic and operational efficiency of the MARD partnerships as well as the “partnership steering” capacity of the departments hosting partnerships. In consequence, there is scope for reducing the transaction costs associated with engagement in and operation of the partnerships. These objectives need to be achieved without losing the relative institutional autonomy of the partnerships, i.e. the “freedom” of the partners and stakeholders in individual partnerships to determine the programmatic focus and key institutional and operational characteristics of each partnership. This autonomy is critical for ensuring the level of ownership and buy-in needed for ensuring partnership relevance and sustainability. In order to facilitate the suggested strategic evolution of the MARD sub-sector partnerships, the study recommends i) establishing a MARD partnership support and facilitation team and ii) institutionalising partnerships as integral parts of the MARD organisational structure as outlined in the following.



In this context the establishment of a temporary partnership structure for the preparation and roll-out of the RD Strategy could be considered. It could take the form of an “innovated” ISG, or a working group under this partnership (a temporary measure given the experiences that such higher level partnerships are not viable in the long term). If it is decided to systematically use partnership structures in the context of RD Strategy implementation, then these should be established in the key sub-sector areas within MARD’s mandate where partnership structures have not yet been established. It is the view of this study that the use of partnership structures as platforms for collaborative engagement between national and international stakeholders in the preparation, roll-out and implementation of the new Rural Development Strategy for Vietnam (RD Strategy) would contribute to a wider buy-in to the strategy among relevant constituencies. Additionally, the use of partnership structures would result in better coordination of the roll-out and actual implementation of the strategy at subsequent stages.

RECOMMENDATION 4: A MARD team for partnership facilitation and support should be established. This “partnership service centre” should maintain a facilitating rather than a prescriptive function and seek to i) enhance partnership efficiency through provision and pooling of resources (e.g. technical assistance, common library of partnership administrative and operational tools); ii) facilitate better linkages between the sub-sector/thematic partnerships and national and MARD level aid effectiveness, governance, public administrative reform and decentralisation initiatives; iii) guide consultations between MARD and partnership constituencies regarding the most desirable arrangements for the location of partnerships, and iv) guide the establishment of new partnerships (if any!).

RECOMMENDATION 5: Options for the exact location of this team and other institutional arrangements should be defined in consultations between MARD and the various partnerships and partner constituencies. However, the options for locating this team within an “innovated” ISG should be explored.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Given the rapid progress towards increased market orientation in ARD, the consequent changes in the function of MARD and the relative importance of public and private stakeholder constituencies, for the ISG to take on this function would require a redefinition of the ISG focus, mandate, resources and institutional location (described in detail in the full report).

RECOMMENDATION 7: Establish a time-bound strategy for the full integration of partnership structures into MARD and/or other national structures, including non-state structures.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Systematically review and decide on options as to where to locate current (and future) partnerships (detailed recommendations in full report). Specifically, the proposed review of specific options for each of the current partnerships should be linked to the planned institutional review of the departmental functions and division of work between MARD departments supported by the MARD-Sida Cooperation Programme.



Prepared by Jens Rydder, Dao Thanh Huyen, Lotta Höglund Commissioned by The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam (MARD) and the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development Facilitated by The International Support Group (ISG) of MARD The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam or of the member organisations of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development. Published by Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, c/o Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Dahlmannstraße 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany June 2008


Contact: Secretariat of the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, c/o Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) Dahlmannstraße 4, 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0) 228 24934 166 Fax: +49 (0) 228 24934 155 Email: Website: Publication date: June 2008

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful